Skip to main content
· 2/2/1891

Amer. Pavement Co. v. Wagner

Citations

  • 139 Pa. 623
  • 21 A. 160
  • 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1030

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. The duties imposed upon the authorities of cities, by § 6, act of May 23, 1874, P. L. 233, providing that all work and materials required by a city shall be done and furnished “under contract, to be given to the lowest responsible bidder,” are not merely ministerial, but are deliberative and discretionary: Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 82 Pa. 343.</p> <p>2. If the officer in whom the function of awarding contracts is lodged, accepts any one of several bids, he is bound by law to give the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, and a court of equity might enjoin the execution of a contract awarded, without sufficient legal cause, to any other bidder, especially if the act was accompanied by evidence of bad faith and unfairness.</p> <p>3. But the officer will not ffender himself individually liable to the lowest bidder by rejecting all bids offered, in the honest and judicious exercise of his discretion, for no one is legally entitled to the contract until it is legally awarded to him, the submission of a bid under the statute being similar, in legal effect, to a bid at an auction sale, where the seller is bound by law to sell to the highest and best bidder.</p> <p>4. At all events, when the director of public works of Philadelphia, in an advertisement inviting proposals, expressly reserved the right to reject any or all bids, he had a right, in the exercise of his judgment and discretion, acting in good faith in the interest of the city, to reject all the bids offered, and advertise for new proposals upon modified specifications.</p> <p>5. And, by so doing and awarding the contract to the lowest responsible bidder under the second set of specifications, the director did not render himself liable for the prospective profits of one who was the lowest bidder under the original specifications, and, insisting on his right to the contract and offering to conform to the new specifications, refrained from bidding the second time.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • jurisdiction is not transferred to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court until it grants an application for extraordinary jurisdiction; the mere -2- J-S22004-19 filing of an application does not confirm jurisdiction and does not constitute a stay

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Clark, Greek, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxsott, Stebbett, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.